Knowledge Base Help Center
< All Topics
Print

Transactional Profit Split Method in Transfer Pricing

The Transactional Profit Split Method (TPSM) is a pivotal tool in the realm of transfer pricing, designed to allocate profits among associated enterprises in a manner that reflects the economic realities of their transactions. As multinational enterprises (MNEs) continue to operate across borders, ensuring that intercompany transactions adhere to the arm’s length principle becomes increasingly complex. The TPSM, as outlined in the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, offers a robust framework for addressing these challenges, particularly in scenarios involving unique contributions or highly integrated operations. This article provides an in-depth exploration of the TPSM, covering its definition, application, suitability, limitations, practical examples, advantages, disadvantages, common pitfalls, and variations in its implementation.

What is the Transactional Profit Split Method?

The Transactional Profit Split Method is a transfer pricing methodology that seeks to determine or test the arm’s length outcome of controlled transactions by splitting the relevant profits among associated enterprises based on an economically valid basis. According to the OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines, the TPSM aims to approximate the division of profits that independent enterprises would have agreed upon in comparable circumstances. This method is particularly useful when direct valuation of contributions is challenging, and a relative share of profits better reflects the value added by each party to the transaction.

At its core, the TPSM identifies the total profits (or losses) arising from the controlled transactions under review and allocates them among the participating entities based on their respective contributions to those profits. These contributions are assessed in terms of functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed. Unlike one-sided methods that focus on the remuneration of a single party, the TPSM adopts a two-sided or multi-sided approach, evaluating all relevant parties involved in the transaction. This holistic perspective ensures that the profit allocation aligns with the economic substance of the transaction, as emphasized in the 2018 OECD TPSM Report.

How is the Transactional Profit Split Method Used?

The application of the TPSM involves a structured process to ensure that the profit allocation is consistent with the arm’s length principle. The OECD Guidelines outline several key steps in implementing this method, which are detailed below:

  • Accurate Delineation of the Transaction: The first step is to accurately delineate the controlled transaction by analyzing the commercial and financial relations between the associated enterprises. This includes identifying the functions performed, assets used, and risks assumed by each party. A two-sided or multi-sided functional analysis is often necessary to capture the full scope of contributions.
  • Identification of Relevant Profits: The relevant profits to be split are those directly attributable to the controlled transaction. This requires segregating financial data related to the transaction from other activities of the enterprises. Harmonization of accounting standards and currencies is critical to ensure consistency in the data used.
  • Selection of Profit Splitting Factors: Profits are allocated based on factors that reflect the relative value of each party’s contributions. These factors can include relative expenditures on research and development (R&D), sales revenue, or other measurable indicators of value creation. The choice of splitting factors must be economically valid and supported by the functional analysis.
  • Application of the Method: The TPSM can be applied using two primary approaches: contribution analysis and residual analysis. Contribution analysis divides the total profits based on the relative value of each party’s contributions, often using internal data when external comparables are unavailable. Residual analysis, more commonly used, first allocates routine returns to parties for less complex contributions using benchmarked data (often via one-sided methods like the Transactional Net Margin Method), then splits the remaining residual profit based on non-routine contributions.
  • Consistency and Documentation: The method should be applied consistently over the lifetime of the arrangement, with profit splitting factors and criteria agreed upon in advance where possible. Detailed documentation is essential to justify the selection of the TPSM as the most appropriate method and to explain the implementation process, including the determination of profits and splitting factors.

The TPSM is often applied in the context of Advance Pricing Agreements (APAs) to provide certainty to both taxpayers and tax authorities. Its flexibility allows for adjustments based on actual outcomes, particularly when risks are shared among parties.

When is the Transactional Profit Split Method Recommended?

The TPSM is recommended in specific scenarios where other transfer pricing methods, such as the Comparable Uncontrolled Price (CUP) Method or the Cost Plus Method, are less reliable due to the nature of the transaction or the availability of comparable data. The OECD Guidelines and the 2018 OECD TPSM Report identify several key indicators for when the TPSM may be the most appropriate method:

  • Unique and Valuable Contributions: When each party to the transaction makes unique and valuable contributions, such as proprietary intangibles or specialized expertise, the TPSM is often suitable. These contributions are considered unique if they lack comparable counterparts in uncontrolled transactions and valuable if they are key drivers of economic benefits. For instance, in the joint development of a pharmaceutical product, where both parties contribute distinct R&D capabilities, the TPSM can allocate profits based on their relative inputs.
  • Highly Integrated Business Operations: The TPSM is appropriate for transactions involving highly integrated operations where the activities of the parties are interlinked and cannot be reliably evaluated in isolation. This is common in scenarios of high interdependency, such as shared IT systems or joint service provision, where one-sided methods fail to capture the combined value creation.
  • Shared Assumption of Economically Significant Risks: When parties share economically significant risks or separately assume closely related risks that cannot be isolated, the TPSM is recommended. This ensures that the profit allocation reflects the actual outcomes of risk realization, aligning with the economic substance of the transaction.
  • Lack of Reliable Comparables: While a lack of comparables alone does not justify the use of TPSM, it often correlates with the presence of unique contributions or integrated operations. In such cases, the TPSM provides a practical solution by focusing on internal data and relative contributions rather than external benchmarks.

The 2019 EU Joint Transfer Pricing Forum (JTPF) Report further supports the potential for increased application of TPSM, especially with the rise of digital economy business models that often involve unique intangibles and integrated operations. The method’s ability to adapt to specific facts and circumstances makes it a valuable tool in complex transfer pricing scenarios.

When is the Transactional Profit Split Method Not Recommended?

Despite its strengths, the TPSM is not always the most appropriate method and should be avoided in certain situations as outlined in the OECD Guidelines:

  • Presence of Reliable Comparables for One-Sided Methods: If reliable comparable uncontrolled transactions are available to benchmark the contributions of at least one party using a one-sided method (e.g., Cost Plus or Resale Price Method), these methods are generally preferred due to their simplicity and reliance on market data. The TPSM should not be used merely because comparables are difficult to find; a pragmatic approach to broaden search criteria for comparables is often more appropriate.
  • Simple Functions Without Unique Contributions: When one party performs only routine or simple functions without assuming significant risks or contributing unique value, the TPSM is typically not suitable. In such cases, a one-sided method can adequately remunerate the routine contributions, and allocating a share of profits via TPSM may not reflect an arm’s length outcome.
  • Lack of Detailed Information: The TPSM requires access to detailed financial and operational data from all parties involved. If such information is unavailable or cannot be harmonized due to differing accounting practices, the method’s reliability is compromised, making alternative approaches more feasible.
  • Industry Practices Favoring Other Methods: If independent parties in comparable transactions typically use other pricing methods, this should be considered. Industry practices can indicate whether a profit split approach aligns with market behavior, and deviation from such norms may suggest that TPSM is not the best fit.

The OECD emphasizes that the selection of the most appropriate method should always be based on a case-by-case analysis, weighing the relative merits and shortcomings of available methods. The TPSM should not be a default choice but rather a targeted solution for specific transactional characteristics.

Practical Examples of Calculations Using the Transactional Profit Split Method

To illustrate the application of the TPSM, two simplified examples inspired by the OECD Guidelines are provided below. These examples demonstrate the residual analysis approach, which is more commonly used in practice, and highlight the steps involved in determining and splitting profits.

Example 1: Joint Development of a Pharmaceutical Product

Scenario: Company A (in Country A) and Company B (in Country B) are associated enterprises jointly developing a new pharmaceutical product. Company A contributes a unique patent and performs initial R&D, while Company B conducts subsequent development and enhancement functions. Both contributions are unique and valuable, and they share economically significant risks. The combined operating profit from the product sales is 100 million USD. Routine manufacturing activities by both companies can be benchmarked at a 10% markup on cost of goods sold (COGS).

Step 1 – Determine Routine Returns:

  • Company A’s COGS for routine manufacturing: 60 million USD
  • Routine return for Company A: 60 million USD * 10% = 6 million USD
  • Company B’s COGS for routine manufacturing: 170 million USD
  • Routine return for Company B: 170 million USD * 10% = 17 million USD
  • Total routine returns allocated: 6 + 17 = 23 million USD

Step 2 – Calculate Residual Profit:

  • Combined operating profit: 100 million USD
  • Residual profit to be split: 100 million USD – 23 million USD = 77 million USD

Step 3 – Split Residual Profit Based on R&D Expenditures:

  • Company A’s R&D expenditure: 30 million USD
  • Company B’s R&D expenditure: 40 million USD
  • Total R&D expenditure: 70 million USD
  • Company A’s share of residual profit: (30/70) * 77 million USD = 33 million USD
  • Company B’s share of residual profit: (40/70) * 77 million USD = 44 million USD

Step 4 – Total Profit Allocation:

  • Company A: Routine return (6 million USD) + Residual profit (33 million USD) = 39 million USD
  • Company B: Routine return (17 million USD) + Residual profit (44 million USD) = 61 million USD
  • Total allocated: 39 + 61 = 100 million USD

This example demonstrates how the TPSM allocates profits based on relative contributions to unique and valuable intangibles (R&D expenditures) after accounting for routine returns.

Example 2: Integrated Service Provision

Scenario: Company L (in Country L) and Company M (in Country M) provide integrated freight forwarding and customs broking services to unrelated customers. Their operations are highly integrated, using shared IT systems and joint marketing efforts. The combined operating profit from these services is 50 million USD. Routine activities can be benchmarked with a 5% markup on operating expenses.

Step 1 – Determine Routine Returns:

  • Company L’s operating expenses for routine activities: 20 million USD
  • Routine return for Company L: 20 million USD * 5% = 1 million USD
  • Company M’s operating expenses for routine activities: 30 million USD
  • Routine return for Company M: 30 million USD * 5% = 1.5 million USD
  • Total routine returns allocated: 1 + 1.5 = 2.5 million USD

Step 2 – Calculate Residual Profit:

  • Combined operating profit: 50 million USD
  • Residual profit to be split: 50 million USD – 2.5 million USD = 47.5 million USD

Step 3 – Split Residual Profit Based on Revenue Contribution:

  • Company L’s revenue contribution: 40% of total revenue
  • Company M’s revenue contribution: 60% of total revenue
  • Company L’s share of residual profit: 40% * 47.5 million USD = 19 million USD
  • Company M’s share of residual profit: 60% * 47.5 million USD = 28.5 million USD

Step 4 – Total Profit Allocation:

  • Company L: Routine return (1 million USD) + Residual profit (19 million USD) = 20 million USD
  • Company M: Routine return (1.5 million USD) + Residual profit (28.5 million USD) = 30 million USD
  • Total allocated: 20 + 30 = 50 million USD

This example highlights the TPSM’s applicability in highly integrated operations, using revenue as a splitting factor to reflect each party’s contribution to value creation.

Advantages and Disadvantages of the Transactional Profit Split Method

The TPSM offers several advantages that make it a valuable tool in transfer pricing, but it also comes with notable challenges that must be carefully managed.

Advantages

  • Suitability for Complex Transactions: The TPSM excels in scenarios involving unique and valuable contributions or highly integrated operations, where other methods may fail to capture the full economic picture. Its two-sided approach ensures a fairer allocation of profits based on actual contributions.
  • Flexibility in Application: The method allows for flexibility in considering specific facts and circumstances, such as varying outcomes of risk realization. This adaptability is particularly useful in dynamic industries like technology or pharmaceuticals.
  • Direct Evaluation of All Parties: Unlike one-sided methods, the TPSM evaluates the contributions of all parties involved, providing a comprehensive view of value creation within the transaction. This holistic perspective aligns closely with the arm’s length principle.
  • Solution in Absence of Comparables: While not a justification on its own, the TPSM can be applied effectively when reliable comparables are unavailable, relying on internal data to approximate arm’s length outcomes.

Disadvantages

  • Complexity in Application: The TPSM is often challenging to implement due to the need for detailed financial and operational data from all parties. Segregating relevant profits and harmonizing accounting practices can be resource-intensive.
  • Subjectivity in Profit Splitting Factors: Determining appropriate splitting factors involves significant judgment, which can lead to disputes between taxpayers and tax authorities. The lack of objective thresholds for factors like “unique and valuable” contributions adds to this challenge.
  • Difficulty in Accessing Information: Both MNEs and tax administrations may struggle to obtain the necessary data, especially when operations span multiple jurisdictions with differing reporting standards. This can undermine the reliability of the method.
  • Limited Use in Practice: Despite its theoretical strengths, the TPSM is applied less frequently than other methods, often within the context of APAs. This limited practical application can result in a lack of familiarity among practitioners and authorities.

Common Mistakes When Using the Transactional Profit Split Method

Several common errors can compromise the effectiveness of the TPSM and lead to non-arm’s length outcomes or disputes:

  • Inadequate Functional Analysis: Failing to accurately delineate the transaction or perform a thorough functional analysis can result in misidentification of contributions and inappropriate profit allocations. A superficial analysis may overlook critical risks or assets.
  • Inconsistent Application Over Time: Changing profit splitting factors or relevant profits without justification over the lifetime of an arrangement can undermine the method’s credibility. Consistency is key unless supported by documented changes in facts and circumstances.
  • Overreliance on TPSM Without Justification: Using the TPSM as a default method due to a lack of comparables, without demonstrating why it is the most appropriate, can lead to challenges from tax authorities. The selection must be based on the transaction’s characteristics.
  • Poor Documentation: Insufficient documentation of the rationale for selecting TPSM, the determination of profits, and the choice of splitting factors can weaken the defensibility of the method during audits. Detailed records are essential for transparency.
  • Misallocation of Routine vs. Non-Routine Contributions: In residual analysis, incorrectly identifying routine contributions or failing to benchmark them accurately can distort the residual profit split, leading to inaccurate allocations.

Addressing these pitfalls requires meticulous planning, robust data collection, and adherence to the guidance provided in the OECD Guidelines to ensure the TPSM is applied correctly and defensibly.

Varieties of the Transactional Profit Split Method

The TPSM encompasses different approaches to splitting profits, primarily distinguished by the methodology used to allocate profits. The OECD Guidelines identify two main varieties, each suited to different transactional contexts:

  • Contribution Analysis: This approach divides the total profits from the controlled transaction based on the relative value of each party’s contributions. It is often used when external comparables are unavailable, relying on internal data to estimate the value of functions, assets, and risks. While theoretically sound, contribution analysis is less common in practice due to the difficulty in quantifying relative contributions without market benchmarks.
  • Residual Analysis: More frequently applied, residual analysis involves a two-stage process. First, routine contributions are remunerated using benchmarked data from comparable uncontrolled transactions, often via one-sided methods. Second, the remaining residual profit is split based on non-routine contributions, using factors like R&D expenditure or revenue share. This approach is preferred when at least some contributions can be reliably valued using external data.

Additionally, the TPSM can vary in terms of the type of profits split-actual versus anticipated profits. When parties share economically significant risks, splitting actual profits is often more appropriate to reflect the realization of those risks. Conversely, if one party does not assume significant risks, anticipated profits may be used to allocate expected outcomes. The choice of profit measure (e.g., operating profit versus gross profit) also introduces variation, depending on the specific risks and expenses relevant to the transaction.

These variations allow the TPSM to be tailored to the specific characteristics of the controlled transaction, enhancing its applicability across diverse scenarios. However, the choice of approach must be justified based on the facts and circumstances of the case, ensuring alignment with the arm’s length principle.

Expanding on Key Considerations for Effective Implementation

To maximize the effectiveness of the TPSM, several additional considerations must be taken into account by practitioners and tax authorities. These include the importance of aligning the method with the broader transfer pricing policy of the MNE, ensuring compliance with local regulations across jurisdictions, and leveraging technology for data analysis. The increasing digitalization of tax administration means that tools for financial segmentation and harmonization are becoming more accessible, potentially reducing some of the practical challenges associated with TPSM application.

Moreover, the role of APAs cannot be overstated in the context of TPSM. By agreeing on the method and splitting factors in advance with tax authorities, MNEs can mitigate the risk of disputes and ensure certainty in their transfer pricing arrangements. This proactive approach is particularly beneficial in complex transactions where the TPSM is likely to be the most appropriate method.

The evolving landscape of international taxation, including the OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiatives, also impacts the application of TPSM. The focus on aligning profit allocation with value creation under BEPS Action 10 reinforces the relevance of TPSM in addressing modern business models, particularly in the digital economy. As such, staying abreast of updates to international guidelines and local interpretations is crucial for practitioners applying this method.

Table of Contents